THE EFFECTS OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING ON NURSE COMPETENCE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Transcription

1 THE EFFECTS OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING ON NURSE COMPETENCE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Penelope Janet Cartwright A research report submitted to the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Nursing Johannesburg, 2012

2 DECLARATION I, Penelope Janet Cartwright declare that this research report is my own work. It is being submitted for the degree of Master of Science in Nursing in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination at this or any other University. Signature Penelope Janet Cartwright Signed at Johannesburg On 30 March 2012 ii

3 DEDICATION In memory of my father Dudley Selwyn Cartwright iii

4 ABSTRACT PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine the effects of problem-based learning on nurse competence. METHODS: A systematic review was used as the study design. This method included defining the research question, searching the relevant databases to access the relevant literature, analysis of the literature using critical appraisal and checklists, combining the results by doing a meta-synthesis for qualitative data, a narrative summary for quantitative data and reporting of the results. RESULTS: articles were initially accessed through the databases and, through specific search criteria, they were narrowed down to eleven (11) articles. These eleven (11) articles went through critical appraisal by the researcher as a primary reviewer and a co-reviewer to ensure high quality and rigor of the systematic review. Of these eleven (11) articles, four (4) qualitative articles and one (1) quantitative article were further analysed and the data synthesised. CONCLUSION: The conclusion of the systematic review was that problem-based learning has positive effects on nurse competence. iv

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My gratitude and thanks goes to the following people who made this study possible: My mom, sister and nieces for all their love and support, and especially my sister for all her help with the editing of the study. To my supervisor Professor Judith Bruce for all the motivation, guidance and support and for believing in me. To Professor Patricia McInerney for all the guidance and support throughout the study and for agreeing to be the co-reviewer. Wits Health School Library for library support and access to the databases needed during the study. To my employer for allowing me to do this study. To my examiners for all their input and comments. v

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION DEDICATION ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES iii iv v vi vii xii xiii xiv CHAPTER ONE ORIENTATION TO THE STUDY 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND PROBLEM STATEMENT PURPOSE STATEMENT STUDY OBJECTIVES DEFINITIONS Problem-based learning Competence Nurse RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS CONCLUSION 13 vi

7 CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH METHODS 2.1 INTRODUCTION SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Criteria for considering reviews in a systematic review Types of papers in systematic reviews Types of participants Types of outcome measures Search strategy in a systematic review Reviewing a systematic review Criteria for assessment Synthesis of data collected METHODOLOGY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW The review question Search strategy Inclusion and exclusion criteria Identification of articles Article selection Papers reviewed Participants Outcomes measured Data extraction Quality assessment Data analysis 41 vii

8 2.3.7 Assessment of methodological quality Independent reviewers Level of evidence Presentation of results CONCLUSION 45 CHAPTER THREE DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES USED IN THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW 3.1 INTRODUCTION TYPES OF PAPERS FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEW DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES USED IN THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Studies selected for the systematic review Studies excluded from the systematic review METHODS OF STUDIES USED IN THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Design of the studies Sampling methods in the studies Data collection in the studies Data analysis in the studies CONCLUSION 64 viii

9 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS OF THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW 4.1 INTRODUCTION QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE Employers generally positive about PBL graduates competence Feelings of contrast Problem-based learning has a positive Changing thinking Nurse practice affirmation Soaring high QUANTITATIVE EVIDENCE Comparison of post graduate nurses at graduation to after six months in clinical practice Competence at the end of programme of study Competence six months after graduation CONCLUSION 78 ix

10 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION 5.1 INTRODUCTION QUALITATIVE SUMMARIES Employers generally positive about PBL graduates competence PBL has positive effects on nurse competence QUANTITATIVE SUMMARIES LIMITATIONS IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSION OF THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW 93 REFERENCES 97 x

11 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Approval of Title from Post Graduate Committee 108 APPENDIX B Ethics Clearance Certificate 109 APPENDIX C JBI Qualitative Assessment and Review Instruments (QARI) 110 APPENDIX D JBI Meta-Analysis and Statistical Review Instruments (MAStARI) 113 APPENDIX E Electronic Correspondence 115 xi

12 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 INITIAL DATABASES AND NUMBER OF ARTICLES 33 TABLE 2.2 SECONDARY DATABASES AND NUMBER OF ARTICLES 34 TABLE 2.3 JBI LEVELS OF EVIDENCE 44 TABLE 3.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF ARTICLES INITIALLY RETRIEVED FROM DATABASES 47 TABLE 3.2 TOTAL NUMBER OF ARTICLES RETRIEVED USING SPECIFIC SEARCH CRITERIA 47 TABLE 3.3 ARTICLES FROM DATABASES 49 TABLE 3.4 QUALITATIVE REVIEW ARTICLES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY 54 TABLE 3.5 QUANTITATIVE REVIEW ARTICLES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY 56 TABLE 3.6 REVIEW ARTICLES EXCLUDED FROM THE STUDY QUALITATIVE 57 TABLE 3.7 REVIEW ARTICLES EXCLUDED FROM THE STUDY QUANTITATIVE 58 xii

13 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 3.1 PROCESS OF SEARCH STRATEGY 50 FIGURE 4.1 SYNTHESES FOR THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW 67 xiii

14 CHAPTER ONE ORIENTATION TO THE STUDY 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Problem-based learning (PBL) has been around since the late 1960 s. It first started in the medical fraternity at McMaster University, Canada, and has since become a means of delivering education to other health professionals, has spread globally, and has gone beyond the healthcare disciplines (Parton & Bailey, 2008; Gwee, 2009; Niemer, Pfendt & Gers, 2010). Education, from a global perspective, and specifically in nursing, has moved away from the traditional teacher-directed approach to a friendly, studentcentered approach, using problem-based learning as a new style of teaching and learning. This educational approach introduced a new style of learning four decades ago (Gwee, 2009). PBL was used to overcome the shortcomings of traditional curricula and to improve clinical practice by delivering learning in small groups and using social construction of knowledge to enhance the rapidly changing learning process (Chikotas, 2008; Gwee, 2009). In PBL, the student learns from his / her own experiences to solve real-life problems or clinical situations (Chikotas, 2008, Niemer, et al., 2010). This allows students to take ownership of their learning, as they can relate to future problems that 1

15 they encounter due to their knowledge from previous experiences (Chikotas, 2008). The purpose of PBL is to allow students to work with experiences gained from any nursing situation, enabling them to become life-long and self-directed learners with the ability to acquire knowledge and skills, and to apply these according to their level of learning at the time (Williams, 2004). Students should be able to identify areas of learning which guide the process of their individualised learning at their own pace. Knowledge and skills are acquired through different means in a PBL learning environment. These include: research, reflection and critical reflection when presented with a certain situation. These are then used to evaluate the student s own self-directed learning (Williams, 2004). The knowledge that is acquired by the students is then integrated into their existing knowledge and experience. Throughout the whole process of PBL, facilitators are required to facilitate and guide the students development, by redirecting them when needed, and challenging the conclusions that they arrive at. Facilitation includes evaluating their understanding and application of principles and experiences learnt (Williams, 2004). The process of PBL involves dividing the students into small groups, and giving each group real-life problems, one scenario at a time, in a systematic manner in the learning environment (Chikotas, 2008; Parton & Bailey, 2008; Gwee, 2009 and Niemer et al., 2010). Each of these small groups has a 2

16 facilitator who coaches and mentors the students with the problems and scenarios they are given, guiding and challenging them where needed, but allowing them to explore all possible outcomes (Williams, 2004). During participation in a PBL environment, there are phases or steps, which must be followed for PBL to be successful (Williams, 2001; Williams, 2004): Phase One: In the first phase, the students are placed in groups of approximately six to nine individuals. They are given authentic clinical or community situations to discuss in their groups. These situations may be presented as videos, audiotapes or put down on paper (paper problems). A facilitator is present to guide the students through any difficulties. At the start, students consider the situation, discuss it aloud, identify what information they do and do not have, and what needs to do be done to gain the unknown facts to understand and manage the situation. During this phase, the students are able to formulate preliminary explanations about the problem or scenario, develop goals and devise an action plan to meet those goals. The students develop selfmonitoring skills which are associated with metacognition. These skills will ultimately result in an individual who is a critically reflective and self-directed learner (Williams, 2001; Williams, 2004). 3

17 Phase two: During phase two, the students use the goals generated in phase one in selfdirected study. They decide on how they will gain the knowledge and what resources they will need to solve the situation. Evidence-based research is one particular resource that the students are encouraged to use (Williams, 2001; Williams, 2004). Phase three: In phase three, the students apply the information that they have gathered during self-study and discuss it with the rest of the group. The group as a whole then accepts, modifies or rejects the information presented by its members. The facilitator asks appropriate questions to direct the group towards the correct solution (Williams, 2001; Williams, 2004). Phase four: This is the final phase of PBL. Students summarise what they have found to be relevant to the particular situation and discuss how their knowledge and skills could be used in clinical practice in the future. The students reflect on the situation and how they solved the problem. This involves critical reflection from the individual and from the group, as well as from the facilitator (Williams, 4

18 2001; Williams, 2004). The group must reflect on the whole process for internalisation of knowledge and for the skills to be learnt. To identify further learning opportunities, they need to ensure that they gain the knowledge and skills to be competent (Williams, 2001; Parton & Bailey, 2008; Gwee, 2009). Through PBL, the groups acquire not only theoretical knowledge, but skills to enable them to continue their learning to ensure continued competency (Williams, 2001). Competence has many meanings, especially in nursing. Since the introduction of problem-based learning (PBL), the competence of nurses has been questioned. Past reviews have focused on defining what the core competencies of nurses should be during and after studying. These core competencies can be described as the ability to apply the skills and knowledge of a particular profession. These competencies include the knowledge, abilities, skills, attitudes, values, reasoning and judgement that are required of professionals to perform as effectively and as competently as is required of them (Lysaght & Atschuld, 2000; Lee-Hsieh, Kao, Kuo & Tseng, 2003; Hsu & Hsieh, 2009). There have been many reviews regarding medical students and problembased programs during their learning years, but very limited research regarding this has been done in the nursing field (Uys, Gwele, McInerney, van Rhyn & Tanga, 2004). Research on the effects of PBL on nurse competency is also very limited. Andrews and Jones (1996) state that PBL is important in 5

19 developing nurses skills, and is used not only in their years of study, but throughout their professional careers. Nurses in the profession accept that their knowledge levels and skills are lacking at the practical level. This limited knowledge in turn affects their practice and skills (Parfitt, 2002). Bradshaw and Merriman (2008) agree that in the last twenty years nurses in the United Kingdom were found to be deficient in clinical skills. This limited knowledge of nurses, and its effect on clinical practice, demonstrates the gap between knowledge and clinical practice, and how it affects the skills and competencies of the professional nurse. Nursing students who have been through a problem-based learning programme / curriculum produce professionals who are competent in the clinical setting from the start of their nursing career, and may even exhibit higher levels of competency compared to their non-pbl peers (Andrews & Jones, 1996; Uys et al, 2004). This demonstrates that the gap between knowledge and clinical practice could be decreased by using problem-based learning. All nurses must be competent in the delivery of care to all patients, using safe and acceptable protocols and methods (Klein & Fowles, 2009). Are all nurses who are trained using a PBL approach able to do this? Does problem-based learning actually bridge the gap between knowledge and skills? Using a systematic literature review and searching for evidence, the effects of problem-based learning on nurse competency was determined. 6

20 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT Current literature shows that limited studies have been conducted regarding problem-based learning and its effects on nursing (Uys et al., 2004), and that there is a gap between knowledge and practice, and practice and competence (Klein & Fowles, 2009; Farrand et al., 2006). Chikotas (2008) supports this statement by adding that students are unable to apply the theory to clinical situations. PBL has been in use for over forty years in the medical field, but has only been used in the nursing field for the last fifteen to twenty years, hence why so little is known about its effects on competence, and the ability of nursing professionals to link theory (knowledge) to clinical situations (practice). The review question is thus: Is there supporting evidence that problem-based learning has any effect on nurse competence? 1.3 PURPOSE STATEMENT The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review to determine the effects of problem-based learning on nurse competence. 7

21 1.4 STUDY OBJECTIVES The objectives of the systematic review were to: Critically evaluate all the relevant articles found in the electronic databases. Describe the effects of problem-based learning on nurse competence. Describe the competencies most commonly identified in the literature associated with problem-based learning. 1.5 DEFINITIONS Problem-based learning (PBL) Problem-based learning is a method used where students actively search for knowledge to solve real-life clinical problems and scenarios. The students critically analyse the problems, and discussions are done in groups. A facilitator is present to guide the students in the group situation (Niemer et al., 2010). PBL is thought to develop an individual who can solve problems, think critically, be a self-directed learner and have the ability to self-reflect. 8

22 1.5.2 Competence Damron-Rodriguez (2008) describes competence as being able to demonstrate that the knowledge, values and skills learned can be integrated into practice. Competence is thus the ability to gain knowledge and skills at an appropriate level where a professional can take responsibility and accountability for individual performance. Competence is operationally defined as the psychomotor and cognitive knowledge and skills that the professional has acquired as a result of completing a PBL nursing programme Nurse A professional individual who has studied in a PBL nursing programme, and has acquired the necessary skills to be a competent practitioner. 9

23 1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A research design is a blueprint for the study being undertaken that enables the researcher to take control of any factors that may influence the findings of the study. Research methods are the processes that the researcher follows when conducting the specific steps of the research design (Burns & Grove, 2009). A systematic review has been chosen to evaluate the research that has been conducted in the field of PBL and the effects it has on nurse competence by collating the gathered information and publishing it. A systematic review is a method that has replaced traditional narrative reviews and expert commentaries. It is a way of summarising research evidence and is based on peer-reviewed protocols, and as such, can be replicated if needed. Systematic reviews try to produce the same level of rigor in reviewing the research evidence as was used when producing that same research (Hemmingway & Brereton, 2009). 10

24 1.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS For the research study to proceed, certain ethical requirements were taken into consideration in order to ensure that the research remained authentic, valid and reliable. The research proposal was submitted to the Faculty s Research and Postgraduate Studies Committee for approval to conduct the study. The protocol was assessed and approval was obtained, subject to minor corrections made to the satisfaction of the supervisor (Appendix A). Application for ethical clearance to conduct research was made to the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Witwatersrand and a clearance certificate was obtained (Appendix B). Clearance from the Ethics committee was still required even though no human subjects or facilities were part of the research study. All articles used in this systematic review were checked against checklists (Appendix C and D) for validity, reliability and authenticity. These checklists are from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Summari programme. All terms and conditions as stipulated by JBI were adhered to while using these checklists. 11

25 An experienced co-reviewer was used to maintain rigor and ensure high quality. No conflict arose between the researcher and the co-reviewer. This allowed for the research to be of a high quality and to maintain rigor throughout the review process. All data results, methods and procedures from the systematic review were recorded in a comprehensive report, and guidelines were used to show the phases of the systematic review process (Evans, 2004). All evidence was critically examined and errors were avoided. This was done with the critical appraisal of all articles with valid checklists from the JBI as well as a co-assessor to ensure a high quality research study. All articles used were handled with respect and integrity and all copyright issues were observed. Two authors, Bev Williams and Noreen Chikotas, were contacted via for advice on this particular field of study. Bev Williams replied with consent to use information from a recent study that her group had done, and offered some advice on the topic of PBL (Appendix E). 12

26 1.8 CONCLUSION An overview of the research study has been provided in this chapter. The problem, purpose statement and objectives of the study have been well described. All variables and terms have been theoretically and operationally defined accordingly to clarify their meanings and purpose in this research. All ethical considerations were described and possible conflicts of interests were declared. The information included in this research report will follow the systematic review process, which has the following phases (Evans, 2004): Review focus: The review question and rationale for conducting the review is discussed. This is done in Chapter One Orientation to the Study. Search strategy: In this phase all electronic databases are searched for relevant studies, and search terms are developed. Relevant articles are selected using the inclusion criteria as set. A hand search is also conducted, and experts on the topic can be contacted for further advice. The outcome of the search 13

27 process is discussed here. This is presented in Chapter Two Research Methods. Study selection: This involves the inclusion and exclusion criteria as set by the researcher and discusses how the criteria were decided on. The outcome of the selection process is also discussed. This is also presented in Chapter Two Research Methods. Critical appraisal: This involves the criteria to determine the quality of the study and the processes used to appraise the studies. The outcome is also discussed. This can be found in Chapter Three Description of the Studies Included and the Studies Excluded. Data Abstraction: This phase discusses the processes for abstracting the data in a systematic review. This is presented in Chapter Three Description of the Studies Included and the Studies Excluded. 14

28 Analysis: This discusses the methods used to analyse the data either metasynthesis or meta-analysis, and are reported in Chapter Three Description of the Studies Included and the Studies Excluded. Results: Characteristics of the studies are discussed as well as a summary of all the results for each of the studies that were included. This is discussed in Chapter Four Results of the Systematic Review. Discussion: A summary of all the findings is presented and discussed, as well as the limitations of the review, and the implications for research and practice. This is presented in Chapter five Discussion, Limitations and Conclusion. The research methods that were undertaken are discussed in detail in the next chapter. 15

29 CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH METHODS 2.1 INTRODUCTION Problem-based learning (PBL) has many benefits for students, not only while they are studying, but when they have qualified and are working in clinical areas. PBL requires one to be actively involved when acquiring knowledge, either by examining, inquiring, reflecting or understanding the problem or scenario (Mennin, Gordan, Majoor & Osman, 2003). When working in groups, the knowledge, ideas and concepts shared between the students allows cooperation between the group rather than individual competition (Mennin, et al., 2003). Long-term retention of new knowledge is improved when the students reflect on experiences and the need to find new knowledge, and this is possible through the process of PBL. Through this process of PBL, the student is encouraged to become a self-directed learner (Mennin, et al., 2003). Lifelong learning is also encouraged through PBL, as it provides the ability to solve problems by retrieving the relevant knowledge (Mennin, et al., 2003). In the clinical area, this self-directed, life-long learner can make decisions by gathering the correct knowledge and sharing it with others. 16

30 The purpose of this study was to summarise the research evidence by conducting a systematic review to get the best possible results. Literature from the last ten years ( ) was identified in an effort to obtain the most recent and updated research done in the field of PBL and the effects it has on nurse competence. This chapter describes the theory of a systematic review and the methods that were used to conduct the systematic review. A full description of a systematic review will be discussed, including: The criteria for considering reviews in a systematic review Types of outcome measures Search strategies in a systematic review Review of a systematic review The methodology of a systematic review will be then discussed including: The review question Search strategy Article selection Data extraction Quality analysis Data analysis Assessment of methodological quality 17

31 2.2 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW A systematic review is a research method that has replaced traditional narrative reviews and expert commentaries. It is a way of summarising research evidence and is based on peer-reviewed protocols, and as such, can be replicated if needed. Systematic reviews try to produce the same level of rigor when assessing and reviewing research evidence as that of the original research (Hemmingway & Brereton, 2009). When conducting systematic reviews, explicit methods are used to search for the literature, which leads to critical appraisal and synthesis of the findings. Relevant publications are selected and the validity of each is assessed by means of objective criteria, reducing reviewer bias and increasing the quality of the systematic review. Systematic reviews involve transparent methods, which are clearly stated in order to be reproducible by others (Collins & Fauser, 2005). When conducting systematic reviews, there are certain steps a researcher must adhere to in order to ensure that quality is maintained. Firstly, the researcher must identify all relevant published and unpublished evidence pertaining to their subject of interest, which usually has a very specific question, and involves a comprehensive search. From there, studies or research reports are selected to be included as part of the inclusion criteria set by the researcher. Each and every study or report is then assessed for its quality and validity, and the findings are synthesised in an unbiased way. The last step is to interpret the findings and present them in a summary, including 18

32 any flaws that may have occurred during the systematic review (Collins & Fauser, 2005; Hemmingway & Brereton, 2009). When conducting systematic reviews, both quantitative, qualitative, or a mixture of both, may be examined - the latter is called a mixed-method systematic review. In the past, systematic reviews concentrated on clinical effectiveness, but are now being used by researchers to examine issues of appropriateness, feasibility and meaningfulness (Hemmingway & Brereton, 2009). In comparison, narrative reviews are generally more comprehensive and usually cover a wider range of issues within one topic. These reviews do not follow any rules or methods about the search for literature or evidence, and they do not discuss how decisions are made about the relevance of the studies with regard to the validity of the included studies (Collins & Fauser, 2005) Criteria for considering reviews in a systematic review Criteria for a systematic review are important as they define what articles the researcher will include for critical appraisal in a systematic review. These criteria include the types of papers being reviewed, and the type of participants that will be included. 19

33 Types of papers in systematic reviews Systematic reviews examine evidence from papers that have quantitative research designs, such as randomised control studies, descriptive statistics and experimental studies, and qualitative research designs, such as phenomenological studies and grounded theory studies. A systematic review, which includes both quantitative and qualitative evidence is referred to as a mixed-methods systematic review (Hemmingway & Brereton, 2009). In this systematic review the researcher used a mixed-methods approach, as using both quantitative and qualitative evidence gives more quality and rigor to the review Types of participants The types of participants in a systematic review are the study population that the researcher will be using. A population in a study includes all the individuals, objects or substances and their characteristics, which meet the inclusion criteria (Burns & Grove, 2009:42). The population is defined according to the researcher s sample criteria and the similarities of all these subjects in the different settings. This population must be accessible and adequately represented in the research study (Burns & Grove, 2009:42), for example, a group of nursing students studying for a Bachelor s degree at a university following a problem-based nursing program. 20

34 From the population, a sample is chosen for the particular study being undertaken. This sample is selected either through probability (random) or non-probability (non-random) sampling methods (Burns & Grove, 2009:42). For example, the nursing students studying for a Bachelor s degree could be selected by systematic random sampling, by allocating numbers to their names and selecting every fifth number Types of outcome measures When conducting a systematic review, the researcher must decide on the types of outcome measures. The outcome measures in a systematic review are those components that the researcher is reviewing in the evidence to make the systematic review meaningful and complete. The outcome measures do not make the studies eligible for review, but form part of the review question that are of interest to the researcher (Higgins & Green, 2009). The outcome measures decided on and explored in this systematic review were to determine if problem-based learning had any positive effects on nurse competence with regards to cognitive and psychomotor competence. Damron-Rodriguez (2008) describes competence as being able to demonstrate that the knowledge, values, and skills learned can be integrated into practice. Problem-based learning results in both cognitive and psychomotor competencies, as it is based on actual problems and involves 21

35 self-directed learning. Problem-based learning stimulates learners and professionals to take knowledge already acquired, integrate new information, and put it into practice (Damron-Rodriguez, 2008). Cowan, Norman and Coopamah (2007) described competence in their review as a variety of behaviours including attitudes, motives, personal interests, perceptions, receptiveness, maturity and personal identity. The different types of outcome measures explored in this systematic review were cognitive and psychomotor competence Search strategy in a systematic review A search strategy describes the means of finding the evidence for a systematic review by identifying the databases that need to be searched for the evidence and by defining the search terms to be used. The aim of the search strategy in a systematic review is to find both published and unpublished studies, including grey literature, from the dates specified by the researcher. Experts in the field of study and authors may be contacted for ongoing and unpublished studies (Pai M, McCulloch, Gorman, Pai N, Enanoria, Kennedy, Tharyan & Colford, 2004). Initial searches of specific databases are done with the original search terms in order to identify other related terms. Once the initial search is completed, a second search will commence using all the identified search terms, and all the databases will be included. All reference lists pertaining to the relevant articles will be searched for any additional information conducted (Pai M, McCulloch, Gorman, Pai N, Enanoria, Kennedy, Tharyan & Colford, 22

36 2004). The detailed search strategy for this systematic review will be discussed later in this chapter under the methodology (subheading 2.3.2) Reviewing a systematic review When reviewing a systematic review, certain criteria need to be adhered to in order to maintain rigor and ensure a high quality study. The review method includes using a co-reviewer to ensure this high quality, as well as using checklists to guarantee that the evidence being collected is accurate and relevant to the systematic review. The methods used in this systematic review, including the criteria for assessment and synthesis of data collection, will be discussed (Pai, et al., 2004) Criteria for assessment Two reviewers should appraise all articles retrieved, both published and unpublished. Where the two reviewers do not reach agreement on a particular paper, a third person will be asked to appraise the paper and give recommendations (Pai, et al., 2004). The articles will be appraised using critical appraisal instruments sourced from the Joanna Briggs Institute ( In this research study, both reviewers agreed on all articles appraised, making a third reviewer unnecessary. 23

37 Synthesis of data collected All data collected must be analysed and the results interpreted. All findings from the articles are analysed in an unbiased way and must be interpreted and presented in a balanced, impartial summary (Hemingway and Brereton 2009). The literature should be analysed for eligibility and quality of sources, to ensure unbiased research (Pai, et al., 2004). To achieve this, checklists must be used to check all articles, whether quantitative or qualitative, and a coreviewer will assist with appraising the retrieved articles for inclusion in the review. In this systematic review all literature was appraised and checked using checklists from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Once the primary reviewer appraised the literature, the co-reviewer appraised the same literature and a consensus was reached regarding which literature was to be included in the systematic review. When combining the results, a meta-analysis should be done to assess if the quantitative evidence is homogenous and effective, and a meta-synthesis should be used to assess qualitative data to ensure all evidence is accurate. Where possible, forest plots and tables should be used to show the characteristics of problem-based learning and the effects on nurse competence in order to place the findings in context. A statistical program designed to analyse meta-analysis, should be used to analyse the quantitative data. The instrument that was used was the JBI Meta Analysis and Statistics 24

38 Assessment Review Instrument (JBI MAStARI). Where necessary a statistician could be consulted in terms of appraisal of findings in quantitative papers. A program designed to analyse meta-synthesis could be used to analyse the qualitative data. The instrument that was used was the JBI Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI QARI). ( The researcher used checklists from the JBI SUMMARI programme to analyse both the quantitative and qualitative data. Tables were used to explain the findings. The researcher was unable to use forest plots as there was only one review article appraised for quantitative analysis and there was thus nothing to compare. 25

39 2.3 METHODOLOGY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW The methodology used for the systematic review was based on guidelines from What is a Systematic Review (Hemingway & Brereton, 2009) and the Cochrane handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins & Green, 2009). These guidelines include: The review question was defined and criteria developed, and published and unpublished articles for ten years were identified. These articles were identified and retrieved through a systematic search strategy, and were selected by inclusion criteria. Each article was critically appraised and analysed for quality by one reviewer and one co-reviewer. The findings of each article were synthesised through meta-synthesis and meta-analysis. Each of these steps is discussed below. 26

40 2.3.1 The review question In a research study, the starting point is an interest in a topic, but many research questions materialise from the daily practice in the life of a health professional. One needs to be interested in something in order to research it, and make it interesting and worthwhile (De Vos, Strydom, Fouche & Delport, 2008). Burns and Grove (2009) concur with De Vos et al. (2008) that research problems arise from practice. In practice, multiple problems exist, and each of these could be researched in various ways, depending on the experience of the researcher. The steps that researchers usually follow are firstly to observe the real world situation, and then identify possible topics that can be researched. Then questions are constructed around the topics, and lastly, the research problem is clarified and refined (Burns & Grove, 2009:76). The review question in this review was based on the researcher s search for topics and questions by asking various people in the area of nursing education. Through this, an interest developed in problem-based learning and how it affects nurse competence. A literature search was done initially to investigate if any previous systematic reviews had been done on the effects of PBL and the effects on nurse competence, thus finding a need to do a systematic review to answer the review question. 27

41 The review question was: Is there supporting evidence that problem-based learning has any effect on nurse competence? Search strategy The search strategy in a systematic review is the method of retrieving all articles, published and unpublished, in the applicable databases to extract the necessary data needed for the review. When conducting a systematic review, an exhaustive search for all primary articles needs to be conducted (Pai, et al., 2004). This includes searching electronic databases specific to the review topic, published and unpublished, reviewing articles by hand search, and contacting certain authors and experts to trace any ongoing studies (Annexure E) (Pai, et al., 2004). Ng and Peh (2010) confirm in their study that an exhaustive search must be conducted in order to gather the necessary literature to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice. Ng and Peh (2010) discuss six crucial steps to follow when conducting a search of the literature for a systematic review. 28

42 These six steps are: Inclusion and exclusion criteria Identification of articles Article selection Data extraction Quality assessment Data analysis For the purpose of this systematic review, all of these steps will be discussed Inclusion and exclusion criteria This describes which articles can be included in the systematic review. The researcher uses sub-headings, outcome measures and study characteristics to describe the inclusion criteria. The exclusion criteria are also described fully in order to exclude those articles from the research (Ng & Peh, 2010). Inclusion criteria describe which articles can be included, and exclusion criteria describe which will be excluded according to certain criteria that the researcher has chosen in order to select the correct evidence needed for the systematic review. 29

43 The inclusion criteria for this review are: Articles that were published and those not published in the last ten years ( ). All articles that had a problem-based learning programme that nurses had gone through during their years of study. Both diploma and degree nurses. Articles that stated that the qualified nurse had been employed for a year post graduation from a problem-based programme. Articles that showed the cognitive and psychomotor competencies of the qualified nurse. Articles that were in the English language for the purpose of interpretation and analysis. The exclusion criteria for this review are: No articles that referred to outcomes based education. No articles where the population was involved with another programme e.g. problem-based learning while doing CPR training. 30

44 Identification of articles Identification of articles involves the electronic databases that need to be searched to obtain the evidence needed, i.e. PUBMED, MEDLINE, Google Scholar etc. This is where the search terms and keywords are important, as this aids the search for the evidence. The search includes published and unpublished articles from electronic databases, as well as any articles from hand searching that may have been found (Ng & Peh, 2010). The researcher conducted an initial search where two data bases were explored: MEDLINE and CINAHL. This was done to find the initial search terms in order to search the other databases. The initial search was conducted over a three month period. While doing the initial search, only the titles of the articles were considered, and where the titles were unclear, the abstracts were considered. The approach for the strategy for the systematic review: Identification of all articles on the topic in the last ten years ( ) Initial search was done using MEDLINE and CINAHL including the search terms: problem-based learning, nurse competence, nurse competencies, and nursing competencies. 31

45 Once the initial search had been conducted, the identified search terms and keywords for the second search were used to search all the databases: PUBMED including MeSH MEDLINE CINAHL JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute Library) SABINET (for published and unpublished studies) EBSCO Host Cochrane Library Google Scholar The search terms included: problem-based learning, problem-based learning nursing, nurse competence, nurse competencies, nursing competencies, competenc*. These search terms yielded many articles and needed to be refined in order to locate the data that was needed (Table 2.1). 32

46 TABLE 2.1: INITIAL DATABASES AND NUMBER OF ARTICLES DATABASE SEARCH TERM NUMBER OF ARTICLES MEDLINE Problem-based learning 4484 (PUBMED) Problem-based learning nursing 759 Problem-based learning nurse 377 Nurse competence 9149 Problem-based learning nurse competence 16 Problem-based learning nurse competency 16 Problem-based learning nurse competencies 17 CINAHL Problem-based learning 4779 Problem-based learning nursing 739 Problem-based learning nurse 75 Nurse competence 9149 Problem-based learning nurse competence 178 Problem-based learning nurse competency 29 Problem-based learning nurse competencies 23 Once the initial search had been conducted, the identified search terms and keywords were used for the second search (Table 2.2). The remaining databases were searched using the same search terms: o PUBMED including MeSH o JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute Library) o SABINET (for published and unpublished studies) o EBSCO Host - ERIC o Cochrane Library o Google Scholar 33

47 TABLE 2.2: SECONDARY DATABASES AND NUMBER OF ARTICLES DATABASE SEARCH TERM NUMBER OF ARTICLES PUBMED Problem-based learning 7026 Problem-based learning nursing 1072 Problem-based learning nurse 545 Nurse competence Problem-based learning nurse competence 223 JBI Problem-based learning 0 Problem-based learning nursing 0 Problem-based learning nurse 0 Nurse competence 0 Problem-based learning nurse competence 178 SABINET Problem-based learning 13 Problem-based learning nursing 0 Problem-based learning nurse 0 Nurse competence 0 Problem-based learning nurse competence 0 EBSCO HOST ERIC Problem-based learning 1041 Problem-based learning nursing 2 Problem-based learning nurse 385 Nurse competence 1 Problem-based learning nurse competence 148 COCHRANE LIBRARY Problem-based learning 172 Problem-based learning nursing 0 Problem-based learning nurse 0 Nurse competence 0 Problem-based learning nurse competence 10 GOOGLE SCHOLAR Problem-based learning 2470 Problem-based learning nursing 799 Problem-based learning nurse 1100 Nurse competence Problem-based learning nurse competence 504 Problem-based learning any effect on nurse 275 competence 34

48 2.3.3 Article selection This describes the methods used to select high quality articles for the systematic review. It allows the eligible articles to be included according to relevance and avoids any duplication (Ng & Peh, 2010). The selection of articles was first done according to the title of the article, followed by reading of the abstracts, and lastly by reading of the full text article. This allowed for screening and eligibility of the articles and avoided duplication of articles from the various databases. Once the articles had been chosen, they were subjected to critical appraisal by the researcher and co-reviewer in order to include or exclude them for analysis. The articles were captured in the Joanna Briggs Summari programme ( consisting of a Qualitative Assessment Review Instrument (QARI Appendix C) and a Meta Analysis and Statistics Assessment Review Instrument (MAStARI - Appendix D) where the primary analysis was done by the researcher. The co-reviewer did the secondary analysis. The final analysis was done by the researcher and the articles were selected for inclusion or exclusion for further analysis and data extraction. 35

49 Papers reviewed Papers that have both quantitative and qualitative research designs relating to the effects that problem-based learning has on nurse competence were reviewed and included in this systematic review. Quantitative papers reviewed: Only one paper was suitable to include in this systematic review. The author used a self-developed survey instrument to gather the data needed. Analysis of the data included descriptive statistics and frequency distributions. Qualitative papers reviewed: For this systematic review, four qualitative papers were reviewed. A combination of methods was used to gather data from the various authors. These methods included: A phenomenological design using in-depth, individual interviews, as well as an interview guide, using open-ended, semi-structured questions. A qualitative evaluation study, which was descriptive and comparative in nature, and in-depth interviews were conducted. A descriptive study using focus groups interviews. 36

50 Participants This systematic review focused on post qualification nursing staff, both degree and diploma, in their first year post qualification, who had been exposed to PBL in their curriculum. Both quantitative and qualitative papers were reviewed. Quantitative paper participants: The participants were all graduates from a Baccalaureate nursing program leading to a formal qualification, selected by a non-probability convenience sampling. Qualitative paper participants: This review focused on four papers. The participants were included using: The snowball effect, using a purposeful, criterion-referenced sampling method. The snowball effect by asking people to identify participants to join in a focus group. 37

51 All the participants who had graduated from four PBL schools and four non-pbl schools Outcomes measured In this review, the competence of nurse graduates who were in their first year of practice post-registration, and who had undergone a problem-based learning education, were analysed Data extraction This involves the extraction of data from the articles only if they met the inclusion criteria, and was done by two independent researchers to avoid biased opinions, making the research of a high standard. The data are reviewed by the researcher and then by the co-reviewer against the checklists (Appendix C and D). The relevant data are then extracted for further analysis (Ng & Peh, 2010). Data was extracted using the Joanna Briggs Summari MAStARI, and QARI programme. The quantitative articles were entered into the Joanna Briggs MAStARI programme, where they were all critically appraised by the researcher and a co-reviewer. Analysis on the extracted data was done. The qualitative articles were done in the exact manner; they were entered into the Joanna Briggs Summari QARI programme, where the primary and secondary 38

52 review was done. The articles were then either included or excluded for further analysis. QARI checklist (Appendix C) The qualitative articles were critically appraised using checklists from the Joanna Briggs Summari QARI programme. The researcher, also the primary reviewer, entered the data into the programme and reviewed the studies using the instruments. The process was an initial assessment of the studies to make a decision to include them for the systematic review or not. This was done by answering ten (10) questions according to Yes, No, Unclear, Not Applicable and Comment. Once this was done, the co-reviewer then reviewed and critically appraised the studies and answered the same ten (10) questions. If the primary and co-reviewer reached consensus, the study was included for the systematic review. The next step was to extract the data from all the studies included. This was done by extracting the method, setting, participants, number of participants, interventions, and the author s conclusion from the study. From the above steps, the reviewers comments were made. The next step in this checklist was to extract the findings of the studies. All the findings were extracted from the appropriate evidence and illustrations from the studies. From these summaries were made from the findings, and categories were formed which ultimately lead to the synthesised findings of the systematic review. 39

53 MAStARI checklist (Appendix D) The quantitative articles were critically appraised using this checklist from the Joanna Briggs Summari programme. The primary reviewer (researcher) entered the data into the programme and reviewed the studies using this instrument. As with the qualitative articles, assessment was done by answering ten (10) questions specific to quantitative studies according to Yes, No, Unclear, Not Applicable and Comment. The studies were then co-reviewed and a consensus was reached to include the relevant studies. Extraction of data was then done according to the method, setting, participants, number of participants, interventions, the author s conclusion and the reviewer s conclusion. Once complete, the results are usually extracted by comparing studies with each, but in this systematic review, only one quantitative study was used so no comparison could be made Quality assessment Ng and Peh (2010) describe quality assessment criteria that can be used for most systematic reviews. This involves using guidelines for reporting research and ensuring that the research is transparent and of high quality. The guidelines for reporting research were discussed in Chapter one: